“Even as we learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this.

Such violence, such evil is senseless. It’s beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.

The people we lost in Aurora loved, and they were loved.

They were mothers and fathers. They were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future, and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled. And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited, and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives.

Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

–

President Obama after Aurora shooting

===

<originally written & posted October 2, 2015 and again on November 5, 2017 and, yet, appears relevant today>

The shooting at the community college in Oregon.

As the president said last night … we seem to be having this conversation far too often in the United States.

Any shooting of innocent people is bad.

Unexplainable shootings seem worse. And because they seem unexplainable we seem to want to go back and reverse engineer information and try and explain the action of someone who does something which seems unexplainable to the everyday schmuck like me <to be clear … reverse engineering is 99% accurate … its predictive engineering that is less accurate>.

And, yet, moments like this make us want to do something … to say something … to solve whatever this something is. All the while serious looking overly somber news people all over the country, as well as an obviously aggravated President Obama, comment on and lament what can only be called a tragic situation. That is all good … but what none of these people seem to nail down is a cohesive strategy to address fundamental reasons for the amount of gun violence that has somehow seeped into the everyday American Life.

Please note I said ‘cohesive’ because the voices shouting seem anything but aligned:

How about we put all the ‘ones’ together and think about a common strategy.

McTague hand drawn relationship on Gun Issue

What do all of these events have in common?

There is a gun.

There is an individual.

There is society <the environment in which the gun and the individual reside>.

Gun control.

I get steamed at both sides on the gun control discussion. Freedom to own a gun does not absolve the freedom from ‘responsible gun ownership.’ On the other side … eliminating guns is just not feasible.

While I certainly don’t have all the political answers I do admit that some aspects of calls for more gun control resonate with me <all the while fully understand that Americans are hardly agreed on the issue with less than 50% wanting stricter gun laws but a majority want better background check>.

And I do know that “a feeding frenzy of new gun legislation is not the answer.” What I do know is that I would rip up all gun control legislation <I believe it is something like over 200 things> and start from scratch.

– I want responsible people who accept the significant responsibility that comes along with owning a gun to be able to own a gun.

It doesn’t seem absurd to demand some level of ‘prove responsibility’ to own a gun. Force registration at police offices or military facilities. Prove you know how to handle a gun <all guns you may have>.

– Any weapon the military uses for military action shouldn’t be in the hands of the everyday citizen. Period. Full stop.

If someone has military experience, then maybe they have earned the right to own an assault like weapon. But I would also make the Military responsible for military trained people who own these guns.

– Ammunition used for hunting or ammunition for non military use.

That’s the only kind of ammunition you can have.

– No more concealed weapons. If you have one, show it.

If I am a non gun owner I want the opportunity to decide to not be near a gun if I want to. If I am a gun owner I want to be fully aware of who else has a gun around me. If I am a police officer I want to be able to see who has what and who doesn’t.

I am sure I am missing something but this whole situation and discussion aggravates my sense so much I leaned in with what I would call the basic common sense thoughts.

The individual <and mental state of mind>.

The flippant “it’s not the gun, it’s the person’ argument is downright silly. Please, PLEASE, everyone just accept it is a symbiotic relationship.

One cannot live without the other.

Next.

The flippant “it’s a mental health issue” … well … suffice it to say “yes” … and then point out if you truly believe we can profile everyone in the entire united states, evaluate them on some set of ‘possibility criteria’ and then track them … well … you are on drugs <which is a completely different issue>.

We cannot institutionalize everyone, or anyone, who has thoughts of suicide, moments of anger at society <or some aspect or group they focus their anger on> or even people with depression and some inclination of some public display of their overall dissatisfaction with Life.

Professional health needs to suck up their pride, and differences, and come up with some basic assessment tool. By the way … has anyone ever heard of ‘social media tracking?’ I can almost guarantee that 90% of all Americans leave an internet footprint … and 99% of the assholes who pick up a gun and shoot some innocent victims certainly do.

I would subjugate one of my privacy freedoms, as a citizen, if the professional health industry said ‘we have a specific assessment tool which will be scanning all online activity which reflects indicators of mental health issues tied with possibility to pick up a gun and kill innocent people.’

C’mon. I have probably met a half dozen social media tracking companies with some technology that tracks words and clicks and even your breathing <it seems> to such a point I am pretty sure they can accurately tell me when I will need to go to the bathroom.

For fuck’s sake. Amazon knows what I want before I want it … certainly we can come up with a tool like this.

Beyond the professionals … there is … well … people … uhm … you & I <and their relationship with potential ‘tragedy creators>. I don’t want to go back to Soviet communism where neighbors reported on neighbors to the KGB … but … for cryin’ out loud … if we simply raised our hands for the people we were 80% sure needed some help … at minimum … they get help … and even better … we cut down on these tragic events by 80%.

To be clear on that last point … perfection may be sought … but will never be attained. Evil does win on occasion <whether we like it or not>.

Society.

Let me begin with …

The picture emerging of Mercer is of a killer who had an interest in mass shootings, having reportedly recently posted on a blog about a gunman who killed two US journalists live on air in August.

He described Vester Flanagan as a man who “wanted the world to see his actions” before adding: “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Oh. Let me add …

In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.

Sigh.

I sometimes think we are our own worst enemy. Regardless. Let me tell ya one thing I know for sure … if someone wants to commit suicide and leave a legacy <be in the limelight> that people will remember forever … just do it, or something, in front of today’s media <and then the entertainment industry will run with it from there with TV specials, movies, docudramas, whatever>.

The core of much of the entertainment industry in America – movies, TV shows and, yes, I consider today’s cable news as entertainment <albeit disturbing entertainment> – is based on killing and violence. We glorify the violence & the violent at the same time as we are saddened by it.

In addition … while we depict the violent as ‘evil’ we just as much showcase them as misguided or ‘faults of society’ <not forcing any accountability or personal responsibility for actions on the asshole who actually pulled the trigger>.

The consequences of this is that our society breeds a sense of ‘victim’ even for the purveyor of the tragedy.

Society?

Shit. Well … we just need to be better dammit.

<sigh>

If not us then who?

Look. The champions for gun ownership point out that the Constitution of the country gives people the right to own guns. I would suggest those people think contextually with regard to that thought … at the time America had no standing army … just citizen militia. Everyone was expected to pick up their gun in defense of this new nation we had just created.

Basically, at that time, everyone served in the military.

I would suggest to the people who suggest ‘more guns’ that maybe if we had a mandatory one year military service <or community service if you do not want military> for everyone then everyone would be properly trained as well as properly assessed.

–

note:

The Swiss require part-time military service from each male citizen between the ages of 18 to 34. Women may serve voluntarily. In a nation of eight million people, about 20,000 soldiers a year attend basic training for 18 to 21 weeks

–

Do I truly want that? No.

Do I truly believe it would resolve a shitload of the issues we have now with regard to guns and violence? Yes.

I am all for maintaining our constitutional rights, but, please, PLEASE, could gun rights people think about the context in which the constitution was crafted.

In the end.

I am all for responsible people owning hand guns. That is their choice and, as a country, we deemed that as one of our inviolate rights.

I am all for responsible mental health profiling.

I am all for a responsible society.

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. It is a complex issue that demands we do something because that is what adults do to protect their children.

I am sure I am missing something and I am relatively sure I will come back and rewrite portions of this but this topic makes me so angry and so sad at the exact same time I just gotta stop for now.

“Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them.”

==

Joseph Heller

—————

“We must overcome the notion that we must be regular…it robs you of the chance to be extraordinary and leads you to the mediocre.”

==

Uta Hagen

——————

Ok.

One of the things that consistently amazes me in the business world is mediocrity.

Ok. Maybe better said …“comfort in mediocrity.”

I am exponentially amazed because if you were to interview 100 different business leaders about their organization and company vision nowhere within that entire interview would you hear “we seek mediocrity.” In fact I can almost guarantee there will be words like extraordinary, innovative, best, new and bla … bla … bla.

That said … mediocrity is a stellar example that you cannot believe what people say and what people say and what they do are often two completely different things. It makes you wonder a little that if everyone’s attitude is so expansive why is their actual behavior so minimal/restrictive?

One writer suggested the reason is ‘vainglory.’

“Vainglory,” an anachronistic term meaning an unjustified and excessive pride in one’s own achievements or abilities is one of the primary forces animating and shaping contemporary culture.

Yeah. I buy that theory.

Probably because I have seen it run rampant among successful entrepreneurs who now run their own companies. Well. Let me qualify that by saying they may represent the biggest ‘vainglory’ offenders (because large companies get mired in mediocrity too).

Ok.

To be fair (to those mired in mediocrity) it is possible the true effect of the recession in the business world is the creation of the ‘being safe’ attitude versus smart risk taking attitude & behavior. To be clear … I am not sure it’s the recession’s fault but I am trying to be fair.

Regardless.

Companies beware. The truth is that death resides in the zone of mediocrity (in a recession or not in a recession). Interestingly I think companies do beware. It’s the leaders who are failing the companies.

So.

Maybe I should say … Leaders beware. Be fearful of mediocrity. And be fearful of playing it safe.

At the root of mediocrity?

Try this on for size. Criticism seems to have replaced oppositional debate as a form of business acumen. Inherent in criticism is diminishing without enhancement. Oppositional debate is contrarianism with the intent to enhance. And, frankly, I don’t have too much to offer here on why that is happening. If it were a generation thing I may have an idea but the people criticizing (leaders) typically grew up in an oppositional debate business world. So I am not sure what is breeding this attitude & behavior.

But. Regardless. It’s happening.

And leaders are consistently permitting their organizations to get sucked into the world of mediocrity regardless of the criticism/debate thing I brought up. To me .. the worst is when a company with all the potential to succeed gets sucked into the zone mediocrity. It is frustrating to see. And painful to watch as they continue in a doom loop of mediocrity. Or maybe call it unfulfilled potential.

I can even identify some key characteristics of a company mired in mediocrity.

1. High churn of leader low-senior people (the ones who ache to not be mediocre and seek to take the calculated risks to break out).

They get frustrated. And they leave for greener grass when frustrated.

2. Low churn of low-senior people with middle age kids.

Oh. They will bitch. Make some noises.

But they know if they feed the mediocre machine (and get a small win here or there) they will never get fired. So they don’t take the day to day risks it often takes to rise above the zone of mediocrity. Worse? They learn to live within it.

3. High churn of young people. Especially the good ones.

The ones who have some ambition or maybe not a lot of ambition but want to learn stuff. They max out fast in the zone and hit a level of dissatisfaction quickly. These really hurt an organization because this group dials up the company culture of miserableness in a sneaky way. They aren’t really grumbling. It’s worse than grumbling. They simply ask questions among themselves. The “why” question. Why are we this way? Why aren’t we growing? Why wasn’t that idea discussed instead of the one that was? Why, why, why and why again. They sense that something is off kilter but they don’t know the answer.

They just keep asking the question.

And when all of that has swirled around long enough. When the repetition of mediocrity is solidly in place. After some time all groups and all employees and all people will get lulled into a sense of helplessness. They start believing they cannot fight ‘the man’ (it can be identified specifically as the leader or simply the organization as a whole) and so they lose sight, or the desire to actually sight, for a something better than mediocrity because of complacency.

In the end.

Being in the zone of mediocrity in the workplace is odd. A little strange. Something feels off, some in-office rhythm is missing, something is off kilter, off balance, out of place.

Its something you cannot really quite put a finger on.

And with all that it becomes … well … it becomes easy to get sucked into the zone of mediocrity. So what can you do? (other than bitch & moan & be mediocre).

If you are a leader? Lead. (but most people aren’t in leader positions).

If you are the rest of the world? Well. I cannot guarantee this will get you out of the zone all the time but you will feel better about yourself and more fulfilled as a person (and possibly be better armed to battle mediocrity).

Never stop learning.

The corollary to this is ‘never stop challenging the norm.’ And at this idea’s foundation is something called commitment. Never stop learning takes commitment. Because in the zone of mediocrity life is much much easier if you go with the flow and accept ‘that is the way it is done.’ Be committed to never stop learning. From anyone. From any place. At any time.

Develop a passion for something.

There is nothing like passion to create day-to-day energy. This is much much bigger than ‘overcoming fear of failure’ or learning from mistakes or any kind of crap like that. This is about positively moving toward some unseen objective – fueled by an internal passion. The best example I found was about Thomas Edison. It stated: Passion inspired Thomas Edison to develop the lightbulb. He failed more than 10,000 times. When he was asked what kept him going after so many failures, he said that he had not failed at all. What he had done was to find 10,000 ways that did not work.

Now. I will talk about resiliency next … but for now? That is passion. Find something to rally around. It’s easier to fight the good fight if you care.

No quit.

This is possibly better defined as “character resiliency.” This has nothing to do with trying and doing and day in and day out grinding it out. This is bigger picture stuff. This is about not giving up on what you dream or imagine. Mediocrity of almost all things in life takes a boatload of resiliency to face and defeat. I threw in character but at its core this is resiliency. Mediocrity is relentless and patient and sneaky. You cannot quit, ever, in your battle against mediocrity.

Ok. So. What happens if you don’t attempt the three things I suggest (or anything to get out of the mediocrity zone)?

Well.

If you don’t do this (and reside in the hellish zone of mediocrity) I have one word for you. Regret. Regrets are almost always about missed opportunities – failing to take the risks that could have led to a more fulfilling outcome.

Mediocrity is numbingly subtle.

Company leaders have to believe they are called to something bold and amazing. Even if it is simply engineering the best toilet. I read somewhere three keys to fighting your way out of this mediocrity malaise:

I believe we each hold within us a vast reservoir of courage.

I believe in doing something every day that scares the shit out of me.

I believe in burning my ships and declaring myself all in.

Love it.

Leaders should have it up on their wall. Breaking out of mediocrity means being courageous, scared shitless sometimes and being “all in” when making a decision.

Ok.

But before anyone thinks this is some wacky uncomfortable hi-risk leadership point of view. Let me say it takes all those things as well as some blending. Yeah. A blend. Blending risk and safety is the key to success. Too much of either is just not good stewardship. Foolish risk taking is as bad as mediocrity. Somewhere in the middle is the zone of success.

All that said. I am coming to the close on this topic.

Mediocrity is a simple thing to identify (if you are honest with yourself). Mediocrity is driven by inertia. So, saying that, mediocrity ends up actually being a choice (it doesn’t come naturally).

I will try and end this by explaining the zone of mediocrity and that choice I just mentioned by using Yeats:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer.”

Yeats suggests that at any moment forces are raveling and unraveling, forming and disintegrating in polarity (or, as one writer explained, “gyres” superimposed on each other with the apex or narrowest point of one at the center of the other’s base). Therefore moments of opportunity occur when time shifts from the outer to the inner gyre – somewhere within the constantly raveling & unraveling.

Leaders are always a focal point for a company’s constantly spinning gyre of ambition and desires. So that leader has to recognize the possibilities inherent in change and the accompanying risks. No change, or progress, occurs in the face of all this raveling & unraveling only through the choice to be mediocre – and not make change (or worse … not take advantage of the forming opportunities).

Their excuse for mediocrity? (if there is an excuse at all). Mediocrity occurs because the problem is that unraveling/raveling is rarely neat and the leader risks losing what is most important – the center. Or as

Yeats suggests:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”

And there in lies the true foundation of the zone of mediocrity.

Those in leadership positions of power and authority who foresee the possibility of ‘things falling part’ remain frozen in models that no longer function, or adapt, in a new environment. They fear losing what is at the center (which is certainly the closest to their soul & well being). So they refuse to embrace change and instead embrace mediocrity.

And in that, my friends, we end up in the infamous zone of mediocrity.

“When we get impatient because something is taking too long, we should remember that Life waits on us a thousand times more than we wait on Life.”

―

Laura Teresa Marquez

==============

You are doing average !!!<said with enthusiasm>.

Uhm

When is the last time someone ever said ‘average’ enthusiastically? <never>

And, yet, here is a Life truth – the majority of life and things we do is average. Statistically it has to <that is why it is called the average>.

Not everything can be shit bad and not everything can be spectacularly spectacular.

An average means that … well … on average this is what happens.

Well.

If that is true … that explains why we are always so impatient for spectacular things to take place.

Shit.

That explains why we are always so dissatisfied in Life <or … let’s say “disappointed more often than we would like”>. Because unless your life is a series of spectacular failures and spectacular wins <where you are most likely an alcoholic or drug addict trying to deal with the massive swings … or some insanely irresponsible individual with no responsibilities> you are most likely dwelling in the … well … average daily behavior space.

Now.

Let me say what everyone has to be thinking “that thought sucks” <and Bruce sucks for pointing it out>.

Yeah.

It does suck.

It sucks because the last thing anyone wants to be is average and it sucks even more … if it is actually true … that most of our lives hover around average <with moments of spectacular bad and moments of spectacular good>.

Even worse?

If it is true … society, business and … well … everyone else … measures average not as acceptable <or the norm> but rather boring, unexceptional or ‘a loser.’ Pretty much we have pounded into our heads that average is bad and we should always be seeking to be better than average – on everything <projects, games, speaking, etc.>.

Uh oh.

And, yet, average is pretty much where everything resides.

Therefore … on an average day what you do <which is statistically more than likely to be average> will be less than satisfactory to everyone else around you.

Once again … this whole discussion sucks.

It sucks because if everything we do meanders around average most of the time and we think about everything desiring to be anything but average … we are doomed to be spectacularly consistently disappointed <if not unhappy> … well … on average throughout life.

Yikes.

I’m getting depressed just writing this.

Ok.

Here is how I deal with this thought.

Average is the cost of doing business … the business called Life.

Do average and several things occur:

1. You are surviving. Yeah. That may sound like a low bar but let me suggest that if you don’t survive you don’t even have the opportunity to do more average e shit let alone anything more than average.

Survival is an excellent objective.

2. You put yourself in position for the occasional spectacular. Let me be clear … average is not mediocrity <which is a slippery slope incredibly difficult to get off of>.

Average is something completely different.

Average can actually be quite a good thing … it’s just Life without any sparkle or bells & whistles. Therefore … average is not settling it is rather the foundation we all seem to build for ourselves to maintain a good and healthy life. And if it is a foundation … well … you can build on it. Without average you cannot attain the spectacular … at least the spectacular good.

3. Average teaches patience and consistency and character. If you can ignore all the blowhards yelling at you for accepting average you will notice that pretty much anyone can attain spectacularly bad <that is easy>.

And you will notice that you will achieve some spectacular goods on occasion.

You will notice that an average Life is one well lived on a consistent basis with more good than bad and more spectacular on the good side than spectacular on the bad.

Average teaches you character in that you recognize that centering your Life around you is a significantly easier Life to live than one that tries to center itself around what others say they expect or desire or value.

Look.

Running about average isn’t a bad thing. It shouldn’t be scoffed at or sneered at or diminished. Running about average means you recognize that Life is a marathon and not a sprint.

In fact … running about average means that … well … that is pretty much what most of us are doing every day at any given point. So, accept the fact most of what you do is average … and that is not just okay it is actually good.

============ POSTSCRIPT ==========

About average.

I am a hope guy & I have always espoused being the best you can be. That said. In my career I have talked with people from rural Appalachia & Kentucky, urban NYC & Dallas & San Francisco, visited farms in Iowa, NC & Texas, homes in at least 25 different states and heard just about every average person you can think of talk about their life.

I say that because most of the consultants and business people I know live in rarified air where discussing leadership thru Hope & “doing great things” is the norm. Most people want to be a little bit better, have a little bit better & see things a little bit better in the future, but know they live average lives … and they are actually okay with that. They truly represent the good in the average American. I counsel my friends in our rarified air to think of ways to talk about being average, and average lives, in more positive ways because, well, it relates more often to the average person.

Robert Frost epitaph quoting the last line from his poem “The Lesson for Today”

==

Well.

I have a lover’s quarrel with the world.

And, frankly, I like it.

Some people suggest it is just being contrarian … and others suggest it is ‘bull in a china shop’ living.

Maybe.

Maybe to both.

But think about this … to me ‘bull in a china shop’ kind of implies that there is this random china shop and for some reason a bull wanders in <that bull would be me in this metaphor>. But … suppose it is actually the other way? Suppose you have a bull. The bull is … well … a bull. It lives its life. It’s content. It’s comfortable being a … well … a bull. Then Life comes along and builds a frickin’ china shop around it. Not just surrounded by fences … but within a china shop … caged … contained … restrained … pick your word here … the bull is unable to move without breaking something.

What does that mean? Simple normal everyday actions are now destructive.

And yet … the bull is simply being a bull. Just being kind of what it was brought in this world to be.

Well.

I like turning it around this way <it makes me feel slightly better>. I like it because it permits me to quarrel with the world … and be in the right. Oh. Right being defined as being myself.

Regardless.

If you accept the turned around thought I shared … well … this may surprise you but … acceptance becomes a key thought and mindset.

Yeah.

Acceptance.

I know that sounds odd because we are talking about possibly crashing around and breaking shit. But the thought is that if you are a bull you accept the reality of the world that is constraining the reality of you.

Now. Please understand. Acceptance is not the decision to do nothing. Acceptance is simply … well … acceptance. It is simply the intention to agree with reality. Accepting what is <and what is not>.

I say this even as a true Life contrarian … because I honestly can say that have never found a time where it was better to disagree with reality. It is always easier to agree with reality … and then start ‘doing.’ Acceptance simply means permitting the present to exist … no matter how painful. Which then leads me to the thought that there is a difference between pain and suffering.Acceptance suggests you eliminate the suffering aspect because … well … Life is what it is. Maybe painful … but not worth suffering over.

Anyway.

Circling back to the bull <as in me>. Life is a china shop and … well … I can’t build a whole new shop for Life … I just have to learn how to live within it.

That is acceptance.

And acceptance that, in some odd way, makes Life bearable. I can keep moving and taking action. I can keep … well … quarreling with the world.

Even better? My actions are derived from an intent to ‘do’ … whatever that doing is … and with a recognition that I will probably break some shit <and have to pay for it> and not driven by some reactive sense of desperate avoidance to not break shit or be constantly aggravated with Life being a frickin’ china shop.

Now.

You would tend to think that accepting the realness of reality is something we would do automatically.

We don’t.

This may sound obtuse … but in actually living it <this acceptance thing> … I can tell you that thinking this way is quite freeing. Because Life can be painful at times and, yet, I have also found that mostly it is painful only because you are in conflict with what Life seems to be demanding of you. So maybe if you can imagine that by accepting the pain as natural … as just part of who you are and the choices you make … you actually limit the pain to such a level it is almost unnoticeable.

Oh. In the cases in which the pain doesn’t recede? Well … you end up fighting back against Life a little bit. And I will note … in most cases you are simply fighting inertia. Inertia as in ‘the wrong type of acceptance.’ In fact … i am wrong .. its not acceptance … it is acquiescence <acquiescence as an overall societal default mechanism>. This is where people simply cease to fight against what they see as an inevitable outcome.

All that said.

It seems like I am talking about some form of ignorance. And I am. In this case it is self ignorance. Ignorant with regard to self-awareness or just ignorant of reality <knowledge and facts and truth and shit like that>.

An ignorance of maybe our personal Life default mechanism.

I imagine the real issue behind ignorance is … well … a natural irrationality. We humans like to think of ourselves as a smart thoughtful intuitive group.

In general … we are not.

For example.

A psychologist described how people are fairly good at predicting the outcome of elections based solely on photographs of the candidates. Well. This is slightly disturbing in that it suggests no matter how much we analyze what a person stands for that a significant part of our choice behavior falls back on some subconscious instinctual gut feeling … that are in many cases typically not rational.

Another example.

Think you can change a friend’s mind about an important issue? Think again. Psychological research suggests the existence of something called the ‘backfire effect.’ This is when by simply mentioning facts that another person won’t like … it will cause ‘double down behavior’ on their original position.

Well.

That sucks. No wonder all of us have some level of a ‘lover’s quarrel with the world.’

Anyway.

This subconscious irrationality seems to reside in the fact that we people are really really good at utilizing an innate default mechanism … either too afraid or too oblivious to make major changes to our attitudes & beliefs. It is an unfortunate truth that it is part of our natural cultural DNA that we do a whole bunch of maintaining, rationalizing, procrastinating and reinforcing … suffice it to call it “embracing the status quo” type stuff.

Sorry to tell you … but … we don’t really do very much thinking about what’s really best for us and the possibly more drastic changes we might need to make to get there. We do some surface type thinking but not the real deep hard thinking.

So what does this mean?

If you don’t quarrel with the world on occasion you simply let Life dictate your … well … life.

By the way.

Please note the ‘love’ in the quarrel thought.

I love Life.

I love the world in which we live.

Does that mean I like it unchanged? Absolutely not. I want to change things … and attitudes and behaviors … and therefore I have a lover’s quarrel.

Maybe I am crazy.

Maybe it comes down to a crazy personal attitude:

==========

“Do I dare … dare disturb the universe?”

–

TS Eliot

===========

Whoa.

Disturbing the universe. Quarreling with Life on occasion. That’s … well … crazy.

Look.

I tend to think it is fairly typical for us to feel like something is missing or unsettled in our lives. I know I do on occasion. I also think it is fairly typical that even though we feel that way … at any given time … the idea of making any type of major change will tend to seem out of the question. I know I do on occasion.

I tend to believe it is is because you believe you are … well … what you’ve been doing this whole time. I know I do on occasion.

I tend to believe we recognize that something missing and yet we make no real meaningful change <for a variety of good … and not so good … reasons>.

Well.

This paradox … which is actually quite natural in our attitudes & behavior … kind of makes the entire thought of continuing with the way things are … maintain the status quo … well … seem a little absurd.

The fact is you are naturally disturbing the universe … at least your own universe. Identity is not static … it is fluid.

You are constantly becoming a new version of yourself … a different person. Yeah. Dramatic changes may actually be necessary to realign with ‘the world.’ In fact … what you feel is ‘missing’ may simply a reflection of the fact that your new version is out of sync with the world and Life. In my words … you are quarreling with the world for the wrong reasons. I say all this psychological mumbo jumbo because this takes some self awareness. It certainly takes battling self ignorance. And inevitably this takes into account self doubt … and <by the way> self doubt exists in everyone.

Well.

Let’s just say it exists within everyone who tries to live their life with some integrity or values.

Because if you don’t care about your ‘output’ <however output is manifested in your daily life … including your actions> being good … and are okay that being bad is just fine … self-doubt has nothing to attach itself to.

Ok.

All that said.

Quarreling with the world.

Disturbing the universe.

We humans ignore all sorts of things that don’t fit our conceptual structures <heads and how we think>. Quarreling is often simply natural chafing against paradigms. And paradigms are a reflection of the defaults we fall into. Some psychologist suggested that paradigm shifts in human societies aren’t made incrementally, but rather in great leaps:

————–

During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.

This negates the truth value of any given idea — but simultaneously demands adjustments of the most dissonant “truth”. Adjustments can employ tactics such as appeals to spiritual beliefs, peer pressure, neglect or diminishing of significance (and vice versa), discrediting a source or messenger, reliance upon tradition, appeal to authority, etc.

——————-

Well.

Those words also apply to us … people .. not just research.

… demands adjustments of the most dissonant “truth.”

Wow.

That’s us people. We need a crisis of anomalous data before we accept change. Therefore … dramatic changes are not just quarrels with the world but arguments. Heated debates.

Look.

I imagine my unending quarrel with the world is one that many have. Some are simply more vocal than others … some get tired more easily than others in the quarrel.

I also imagine just to keep my sanity that I embrace the thought that maybe it is simply part of who I am that I see myself freed of what may often be seen as natural boundaries all with the hope to someday reach a larger vision of possibilities. I certainly do not seek to imply simple optimism or a some utopia to be arrived at in the distant future. It is simply the journey to something better.

Better than what is today.

Maybe I quarrel with the world because today’s world can be a harsh and difficult one scattered with cruel weather surrounding character and soul. And I accept the pain as I sometimes stumble down a path can be strewn with ruins of what was … and outdated cultural monuments.

I like to think I reject the past … and embrace the past … at exactly the same time.

============

“Beyond the wall another wall, on the wall stopped dead one sentinel.”

—-

Regina Derieva

============

I accept the walls.

I accept the sentinels who stand watch over the status quo.

I accept the china shop.

Maybe I just like to think of it as larger with new freshly painted walls. And maybe I simply am quarreling with the dead sentinels standing upon the walls.

I have a lovers quarrel with the world.

I do the best that I can.

I take solace in something Augusten Burroughs said:

===============

“I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.”

===============

I am flawed … I have good intentions … and I will quarrel with the world.

Look.

I know that the world is a good ‘quarreler.’

It challenges, tries to push you down and sometimes makes you feel like there is no hope.

No hope for being better.

No hope for change.

Me?

In acceptance I find some type of courage <not sure that is the right word> to defeat these feelings.

I am flawed. But I know I have a good intentions.

Now.

That’s got to count for something in a lover’s quarrel. Because, well, I have a lover’s quarrel with the world.

“Almost everyone will make a good first impression, but only a few will make a good lasting impression.”

=

Sonya Parker

————

Well.

First impressions don’t matter. Ok. Maybe that was a little harsh. Let me suggest that final impressions are arguably more important than first impressions.

No. let me try that again.

Let me say I believe that final impressions are more important than first impressions.

I am fairly sure that I have always thought this and have continuously balked at the ‘make a good first impression’ emphasis throughout my career <and Life>. But I would say this thought has become more tangible as I have gained more & more experience.

Now.

I will also say that all impressions matter. First, middle & last. However … most typically we judge our experiences based on what we experience last and not what happened at the beginning. We most often judge based on the last impression imprinted upon our perceptions & beliefs <this is extremely important if you care about memory recall>.

The last impression puts a period <question mark, exclamation point, comma, etc.> on the totality.

Or.

The last impression can be the pin that pops the balloon of value you created throughout the experience.

Or.

The last impression can provide the ellipsis … <pun intended> … the suspension point offering hope for more.

And while I am focused on last impressions I don’t want to totally diminish a first impression nor ignore the fact that it is really, and truly, more about a compilation/summary of impressions.

I will say we talk a shitload about how first impressions matter to us a lot in our lives <to us and for us> seemingly ignoring that we are actually evaluating things all the time.

Look. Think about it. If you start off on the wrong foot … is there really no chance of recovery?

<of course there is>

If you start poorly … are you doomed to fail?

<of course not>

I could easily argue that 90% of the time I can overcome a bad first impression. I could easily argue that first impressions maybe get you in the game <I say maybe> … but last impressions are … well … the last.

Oh. In addition. Let’s be clear <continuing to make my point>. Regardless of ‘good first impression’ or ‘bad first impression’ … there is always the last impression.

Shit.

There are first impressions, middle impressions and last impressions.

There is even some guy who argues that when creating a message, in totality, you can leave the best impression if you have a slow start and conclude great <he calls it his ‘sailboat chart’>.

<while I agree conceptually … I would argue this is not a particularly healthy strategy>

I have written about the importance of last impressions using marketing as an example as well Life.

Like it or not … pretty much all the time we are being evaluated through this wacky thing called heuristics. Lets call them ‘personal value cues’ <please don’t call them personal branding cues which is different> And we give these cues all the time … and they scream at the top of their lungs even if you aren’t looking at them. Even worse? You can even be silent and be giving a ‘value in self’ <character> cue.

For example.

Bach was a master of ‘negative space’ … building masterful musical combinations … he also used silences that are as eloquent and thought provoking as notes, tempo and syncopation.

<I used Bach because creating impressions is like composing a symphony>

Well. If you think really hard about that … well … this sucks. This means pretty much everything you do, you don’t do, you say, you don’t say … matters. This means pretty much everything you do, you don’t do, you say, you don’t say … creates some impression. This means pretty much everything you do, you don’t do, you say, you don’t say … creates ‘perceived value of you’ in others eyes.

<note: I am fairly sure that offers up every action, and non action, to say that pretty much just showing up, whatever you do, matters>

In fact … it reminds me of something I read:

———-

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count. Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life and business <whether we like to admit it or not> is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial <therefore unique is basically artificial in its inevitable obseletion> where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

————

That all maybe too poetic in discussing something like creating impressions and creating value but simply put … “everything has to do with everything else.”

Suffice it to say … the first impression impacts the last impression … or at least how the last is viewed. And this means people view in totality <not just first impression> and the last has higher value than the first.

In addition … the outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

That is why I shiver when I hear ‘its all about making a great first impression.

The outlines of how to create an impressions are often vague … but … suffice it to say the details count.

Shit.

Everything counts in terms of making an impression.

Sure … a carefully crafted first impression that makes you stand out or make you distinct is clearly a good thing and … well … insures you get listened to. Basically, it insures you are in the game.

But, remember, this whole ‘creating an impression’ discussion is really about that wacky thing called ‘value.’

I hesitate to call anything to do with self and how people look at you as ‘value’ but if you strip away all the politically correct ‘feel good’ bullshit … people assess you for what value you will provide them <friendship, commonalities, smarts, experience, etc.>. And, if you are not careful … how you present yourself can send a different value, or price, cue than who you really are <or the value you want to portray>.

That is misaligned messaging <including non verbal cues into the messaging header>. And misaligned is bad <that is a Bruce-ism>. Particularly if the kind of impression you want to create is important to you.

Anyway.

Here is the thing about impressions … damned if you do … damned if you don’t. What I mean is that you gotta ‘play’ <actively engage>if you want to make an impression because even if you don’t … you make an impression. You gotta let the chips fall as they may … “my last impression may suck … it may just not be as good as my first impression but ‘give me the ball coach and let me play’” has to be your attitude. I, personally, espouse “go big or go home” but it is more important that you figure out how you want t play … and play.

Ok.

One last thought on last impressions. In today’s world … I included <because I am writing this damn post> … we are often quick to judge off of outcome. This is the good news with regard to my “last impressions are the only thing that matters” belief. Our last impression is often the tangible. The output and the outcome.

Should it be? Sure.

<I guess>

But it is quite possible that the last impression judged should be ‘the measure of the person.’ And it is with that thought where the whole concept of ‘the first impression is most important’ falls apart … while our first impressions are frequently based upon instincts, impulse, intuitions and emotions; they are also built on our doubtful beliefs, not all are rational thought or fact-based evidence.

I sat that because, well, first impressions inherently suck at assessing & providing the ‘full measure’ of a person. The truth is that it is the last impression permits you to assess the ‘full measure of the person.’

The full measure assesses those who chose to play the full game. Win, lose or draw. Whether the game was thrust upon them or they thrust themselves upon the game … the ones who step up every day and every moment.

===

“They call me observant.

That’s not particularly true.

People are so easy to read – we bleed emotions even in the way we drink our coffee.

No one seems to notice though.

They’re all too busy drinking their own damn coffee. “

onlyjustabrokensmile

===

Giving the ‘full measure’ of someone demands that we not only bleed emotions as we bleed impressions but that we force people to stop drinking their own coffee to watch us bleed.

Inevitably that means the last impression is an impression of someone’s character more than value offered, and provided.

That’s why last impressions count the most.

Because it ain’t the first impression that matters … it is the last.

Because what lasts is the “measure of the person.” In my mind I want to make sure the last impression equals the true measure of who & what I am.

This is about last impressions being more important than first impressions and a tangible example using Clorox TV commercial <which will not appeal to everyone>. This ad is designed exactly for the audience it was designed to talk to. This means that teens and young people will be bored. It is slow and unfolds and … well … it tells a story. Older people <old as well as aspiring old> … will enjoy .. maybe get a chuckle.

Oh.

And the good news? It is for a household cleaning product.

Oh.

More good news? It is from a staple household brand with gobs of heritage <been around for gobs of years> so it is relevant to whom they are <and subliminally kind of reminds you that they have been around for gobs of years thru a really nice hyperbole-stretched reference>.

The commercial was about this new ‘no waste’ cleaner pump spray they have. Not only is it a nice product/packaging idea but they had found a nice storytelling way to talk about it

The commercial? I would show you the commercial but it is no longer online but here is the premise <from DDB>:

——

The ad created a world where Ben Franklin, the most prolific mind of his time, nay the most prolific mind of ALL time, actually did create this product more than 300 years ago. But through some unfortunate circumstances, the bottle was lost. That is until the brilliant minds at Clorox stumbled upon the same invention and once again made cleaning history.

——-

Suffice it to say the story <message> is relevant to today <no waste, efficiency, good value, best expenditure you could make, etc.> but they also suggest that the idea has always been relevant.

Why is that important?

Well.

First.

People who are saving money don’t really want to feel like today’s circumstances are forcing them to save money. They would like to feel they are just being smart … and being smart is timeless.

Second.

People don’t want to feel cheap. Cheap as in “that last little drop really does matter to me.”

Now.

That is a wonderful little insight … and that wonderful little insight <which apparently I did not come up with> was utilized in this little TV commercial. And I bet research was used … and I finally get to talk about how research can be used well <because I am guessing this is a good example>. Here is my guess on what happened.

– Trivial out loud, aggravating inside insight

They <researchers> probably had to work pretty hard to get people to not only talk about this … but admit it. It sounds so trivial <the last spray … or … the last little drop>, petty and cheap. People probably didn’t really want to admit it. My guess on how it went:

——

You’re cleaning, spraying … it spritzes a little … and then the next squeeze of the trigger … nothin’.

Nada <insert thought bubble of ‘crap’ over users head here>.

You shake the container and … hey … there is still something in there <albeit just a smidge>! So you point, squeeze and … nothin’.

Nada.

You know it is, at best, one more use … maybe even a halfhearted spritz remaining … but it is aggravating <on a variety of levels … you didn’t get to finish cleaning to the level desired – a lack of completing objective – as well as ‘I paid for it’>.

——

Whew.

Even typing this it sounds trivial. Saying it out loud? You sound cheap and petty.

C’mon.

It’s just the dregs at the bottom of the bottle.

Yup.

BUT.

Aggravating nonetheless.

Finding this insight is a good use of research.

Next.

– It’s not the 1000, it’s the 1 I didn’t get insight.

This may seem obvious after what I just wrote in the first point … but it is a nuance that has to get recognized <and you would be flabbergasted – I just wanted to use that word – by how many professionals would miss this important nuance>. So it is only obvious if you don’t ignore it.

This is a well forgotten Life and marketing truth. It ain’t the first impression that matters … it is the last.

The practical <hack> brand manager is likely to think … “great value … they got 1000 efficient uses for only $x … that is only pennies per pull!”

The insightful brand manager thinks … “they aren’t happy with the product … well … they are feeling less than satisfied as they throw it in the trash <and listen to a little sloshing as it drops into the trash can> … their last impression is tinged with a sense of aggravation or dissatisfaction. Hmmmmmmmmm …. They are defining the product by the one spray they didn’t get rather than the 1000 they did get.”

Does that make an irrational consumer? You bet.

Does it matter anyway? You bet.

Perceptions don’t always match up to reality. You have a choice … manage the perceptions or change reality.

Clorox was smart. They changed reality. They eliminated the ‘one I didn’t get.’ Smart. Really smart. Good use of research <and someone who could actually decipher it>.

<note: detergent manufacturers should take note of this insight because all the new ‘free flow’ liquid containers leave an aggravatingly large amount of detergent left sloshing around that you cannot get out>

Regardless.

I liked their commercial for a number of reason. Good insight(s). It’s smart.

Meaningful product enhancement <addresses a user problem>.

Heritage. Clorox has been around forever. In a nice understated way they remind you they have been around since … well … a long frickin’ time.

They make the user feel smart.

They even have a slight chuckle at their own expense <copy: we did think of this a long time ago but lost it>. And it’s a simple execution … but entertaining. It doesn’t have any of those flashy production techniques nor any of those quick cuts back and forth between random vignettes … but rather it is … well … a story.

In the end.

When told well … stories are timeless. Marketing people should remind themselves of this on occasion. Well done Clorox.

“There’s a beauty in all my imperfections and he’s the one who holds them up for me to see.”

=

Crazy/Beautiful

——————

“Nobody is perfect. Everyone has their own little idiosyncrasies. Some people call those imperfections, but no, that’s the good stuff. “

—

Robin Williams

—————————–

“A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

=

The Twits <Roald Dahl>

——————-

“الجماللديهاالكثيرلتفعلهمعالطابع

“Beauty has a lot to do with character.”

=

Arabic proverb

—————

Let me begin where I will end … there is beauty in imperfections.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

Well.

That would imply being authentic is all about being as beautiful as you can be … imperfections and all.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

Okay.

That said.

Why the hell don’t brands, companies & marketers not only accept this, but embrace it. We talk about “authentic” and “being human” and, yet, businesses run scared of anything less than being some perfect droid of humanity <you cannot be a droid & human>.

It’s like they want something, but are not willing to accept what they want. Look. We’ve danced around this authentic concept in business for a while. Far too often it reaches some absurd levels of “how can I be authentic” which is … well … weird. You are either authentic or you are not <and you shouldn’t have to be purposeful in doing so>.

I believe the absurdity is centered on the fact businesses have an uncomfortable relationship with authenticity. They talk authentic/human, which means embracing imperfections & flaws, but are scared shitless of anything less than perfection & flaws with ‘customer service’ <or anything for that matter>.

In other words. They seek to be authentically perfect <an oxymoron>.

It is usually here where I pull out the 2012 Trendwatching Flawsome trend where they stated: “brands that behave more humanly, including showing their flaws, will be awesome.”

————-

While many trends are all about the new, it’s always worth remembering that success in business in the end is more about being aligned with consumer culture than just being aware of ‘new’ techniques and technologies.

While 2011 saw new levels of consumer disgust at too many business’ self-serving and often downright immoral (if not criminal) actions, stories of businesses doing good (Patagonia! Ben & Jerry’s!) remind consumers that personality and profit can be compatible.

In fact, in 2012 consumers won’t expect brands to be flawless; they will even embrace brands that are FLAWSOME*, and at large (or at least somewhat) human. Brands thatare honest about their flaws, that show some empathy, generosity,humility, flexibility, maturity, humor and dare we say it, some character and humanity.

————————–

I agreed with that trend then and I agree with it now. A Flawsome authenticity should be what every sane business should seek – internally with employees & externally with customers.

But they just can’t seem to get there mentally. Companies want authenticity, they want ‘human’ but don’t want the imperfections.

Brands don’t find imperfections interesting, they find them concerning. Why? Far far too often we use imperfections to point out those things we so flippantly refer to as ‘flaws.’ Here is a thought. Maybe we should refer to imperfections as “beauty marks” and stop being defensive about them.

While I would argue there really is no such thing as perfection for the sake of today’s discussion let’s say there is. I do so with Walt Whitman in mind:

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”

Within the multitudes lies the most interesting imperfection of all … contradiction. More often than not we look upon ourselves as imperfections but something, or more often, some things simply contradict.

Our internal thoughts conflict.

Our opinions conflict … with each other as well as with others.

Our actions can contradict <nice at some point & not so nice in a similar situation>.

This creates a problem for a business.

In business, perfection, for some odd reason, seems tightly tied to consistency. Some tenuous smooth link between what we desire, what we are, how we act and what we think. And any time this smoothness is rippled in any way … well … somehow imperfection has entered into the equation. And, there you go, that is a bad thing for most business people.

Day after day I remind any company, any brand, any CMO:

We are large.

We contain multitudes.

We are human <because business, inherently, are made up of its people>.

And within this large multitude there are loud voices, quiet voices and silent voices. All of which speak to us … and for us. All of which use perfect words, use perfectly sensible well intended actions, to perfectly fuck up our smoothness.

Yikes.

All that perfection still creates imperfection.

If you want to be authentic that is the overall thought everyone kind of needs to get their head wrapped around. In the circular world of imperfection, or perfection <because they are actually one and the same simply different sides of the same coin> the most interesting in us, and of us, is always something of a contradiction.

I purposefully used appearance-like quotes to open this thought piece and have purposefully avoided discussing appearance in discussing beauty, perfection & imperfection. I did so not to tritely suggest that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ but rather instead to point out beauty is complex & simple and made up of the things you do & don’t do – not external looks & perceptions.

Authentic is complex in its make up of its largeness and multitude.

Authentic is simple because it resides in contradictions.

Even simpler in that it rarely, if ever, resides in some smooth unrippled feature – whether that feature be physical or within character. But maybe that is why imperfections are so difficult for us … as in sense of self … to manage. Contradictions are not easy. Interesting … but not easy. Not always easy to grasp and not easy to understand. And in our unease we dwell on the imperfect feeling … on what is actually our perfect interesting aspect of who and what we are.

It is a battle, a debate, a whatever, I believe most everyone, most any businesses seeking authenticity, faces in some form or fashion.

===

“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

–

Longfellow

===

Look.

There is always … and I mean ALWAYS beauty in imperfections. It is sometimes not easy for someone to see because it is a contradiction – how can an imperfection be perfect <which equates to beauty>?

And, correspondingly, how can beauty be imperfect?

Well.

All I really know is what I said before – all imperfection has some beauty.

I could also suggest that if you think of character, which is most likely the most important aspect of total beauty in a person <even impacting appearance>, that without some contradictions you will certainly be smooth, consistent & unrippled … and less interesting <boring as a matter of fact>.

And who the hell wants to be an authentically boring business <or person>?

Anyway.

I am done babbling. For what it’s worth <most likely not much>.

I believe contradictions are beautiful. Therefore wherever I see contradictions, within someone or in someone’s appearance, I see beauty. And I can honestly say that if you even want to tie your desire of “authenticity” to storytelling … I can unequivocally tell you that people are attracted to stories with some tension and resolving some conflict.

There’s a set-up, a conflict, a villain that must be overcome and a resolution with a hero at the end. Using conflict creates the opportunity for a hero, even a flawed one, who can provide a solution <even with its imperfections>.

===========

“True perfection has to be imperfect, I know that that sounds foolish – but it’s true.”

How often have you seen when all the great minds in the office get together to solve ‘the problem’ and … well … it only gets worse?

Or how about this.

There is no problem … someone comes in and says ‘here is how we can make it better’ <usually said with excessive enthusiasm> and … well … it gets worse.

Now.

To be fair.

There is an art & science to managing “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” I say that because we are often quite flippant with regard to suggesting ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.’ What I mean is that some things broken … don’t look broken … or even kind of broken. Which kind of means that particular thing’s version of ‘ain’t broke’ is actually a kind of slippery inefficient … or some version of being slightly outdated or … well … pick a variety of reasons that if you leave it alone you are gonna be out of business in no time.

In other words … broken often is very good at hiding under a ‘not broken’ cape.

Anyway.

I wasn’t sure if this was going to be about not being able to leave things alone or mis-managing an organization <and employees>.

So I thought I would discuss both.

– Not leaving things alone.

To be clear as I begin … in general I am a tweaker. I never typically left things alone. I have always believed businesses run along a 5 lane highway and you are always speeding up or slowing down or shifting lanes … staying within the vision/strategy guard rails of course.

Ah.

But always moving.

It could easily be argued I never knew how to leave things alone.

Now. The advantage of never leaving things alone is that:

<1> you are always paying attention, and

<2> as soon as you recognize things are getting worse because of something you have done … you can course correct and

<3> because you are already moving you are simply shifting and not having to generate energy to get started.

Possibly … this suggests that this style of ‘making it worse’ only occurs in lesser degrees. But. Not leaving things alone is only effective if it is not an ‘in & out’ trait. You have to balance tweaking and watching or waiting. You have to be … well … patiently impatient.

You tweak … leave things alone … always have to be prepared to step back in again.

Oh.

Also.

Not leaving things alone is an art. It takes touch. What I mean by that is even though I never liked leaving things alone … I did leave them alone. And for some meaningful amount of time … at times.

It’s balance.

Regardless. People who do not have the touch and simply change to put their own thumbprint on something or just to change for change sake … well … they make it worse <on a number of levels>. Number one on almost every list of management things that demotivates employees … is making things worse than they are. In other words … change just for change sake.

Ok.

Next.

– Mismanaging problems

What to do and how to do it often go out the window during a crisis. In other words … plans always look awesome when they are … well … plans.

First.

Plans rarely remain intact once in contact with the actual problem.

Second.

It is easy to plan … it’s not so easy to manage and produce within ‘the problem zone.’

Think of this part of hte discussion as a good practice player versus a good game player. It’s natural. This is because your emotion mind takes over and the emotions begin to control your thoughts and behaviors. Regardless of emotions or not … suffice it to say you make things worse for typically one of two reasons:

You suck at being a manager.

You suck at working with stress.

These two things come to life in the office in a number of ways as you make things worse <and demotivate which exponentially increases the ‘worseness’ of any situation>:

– criticize everyone but yourself

Pointing out someone’s mistake in front of others rarely generates a good response. Some managers think publicly discussing mistakes creates a ‘teaching moment’ for everyone. Well. Not so much. It just makes everyone feel bad.

By the way … criticize everyone else version 1.5 is where you insincerely criticize yourself in front of others just as a prelude to criticizing others. This <the 1.5 version> may be worse than criticize original. It makes making things worse go to a new level.

– no follow up

Whew. I could have made this ‘do what you say you are going to do.’ Regardless.

If you ask people to do shit, acknowledge it.

If you say you are going to do something, do it <or at least acknowledge you haven’t>.

No follow up makes things worse. It is okay for things to go nowhere … as long as you acknowledge its ‘nowhereness’ … because then nowhere actually ends up being some version of ‘well … at least its somewhere.’ Suffice it to say no follow up makes nowhere truly nowhere. And nowhere make things worse.

– unachievable goals or deadlines

Problems or changing things inevitably seems to be an opportunity for a manager or leader to … well … motivate … maybe even attempt to inspire. Things like … ‘aim high!’

Uhm.

No.

Don’t.

Once employees realize they won’t be able to get something done, they’ll think, “what’s the point? … I’m going to fail.” Even worse? They will be hesitant to believe you can actually set goals in the future <by the way … that is really making things worse>. If you are going to break something that appears unbroken … this is not a motivational moment … this is a more pragmatic teaching moment. Get them to believe in what they are doing … not inspire them. Inspirational speeches in these type situations typically just makes things worse.

– not explaining

I don’t believe everyone needs to know everything all the time. Sometimes leaders need to carry a heavier burden so that the people will actually get the shit down are light enough to … well … get the shit done. But. If you are breaking something that doesn’t look broken … just because you know all the reasons why you should be doing it doesn’t mean you should hide those reasons. Explaining management decisions will help employees understand your perspective, they’ll respect you for it … and things won’t get worse. Employees ignorant of purpose or reasoning tend to make things worse. And worse? They don’t even do it on purpose.

– implied threats

Things like ‘we are fucked if you cannot get this done’ statements tend to not be very effective in keeping things from getting worse. At the next level of heightened ‘oh shitedness’ falls the infamous ’do this or else’ attitude often has the opposite effect when it comes to motivation. Suffice it to say threats, implied or … well … plied, makes things worse.

– not respecting others have to say

This isn’t just listening <although that should be high on everyone’s list … because if you don’t listen you will surely make things worse>. This is more about … well … let’s call it ‘respectful listening.’ You just cannot ignore if an employee takes some initiative to improve something. You have to take a good hard look at the suggestion. Not only is it demotivating if you don’t <which makes things worse> you may also be missing an opportunity to fix something broken that doesn’t appear broken <which inevitably makes things worse if you don’t fix>.

– micromanaging

Shit. You are already attempting to convince people you are trying to fix something that is not broken … and now you start micromanaging? Well. You may as well do it yourself <because that is what the people are thinking>. Employees need to feel trusted and valued to succeed. Micromanaging does the opposite. Micromanaging makes things worse … not better.

<done with list of things>

Ok. Having shared all that … let me say that sucking at being a manager is significantly easier than not sucking as a manager. Realistically you do your best simply to not make things worse as often as possible. Accept this fact <business truth>. You will make things worse on occasion … throughout your career you are just trying to limit those times … and manage them as quickly and effectively as you can.

Lastly.

Yes.

We all seem to make things worse in business.

<sorry … hate to break the news to all business people>

And while I know that from my experience in the business world I actually have research to support it:

————–

Ever notice how a new employee’s enthusiasm eventually wears off? In 85% of companies, employees’ morale significantly drops off after their first six months on the job, according to a survey from Harvard Management Research.

How can this be <especially if you are a good manager>? For the most part, enthusiasm is determined by work environment, and it can be fostered or hindered by the manager or leader.

Employee motivation experts say the best way to keep employee enthusiasm moving forward is to “first, do no harm.”

—————

Well.

That is a motivating thought isn’t it? “Do no harm.” (not really)

Anyway.

At a minimum … just try and do your best to not do anything that demotivates employees. Or maybe better said … just do your best to not make things worse.

———————–

“Close some doors today. Not because of pride, incapacity or arrogance, but simply because they lead you nowhere.”

Paulo Coelho

——————————

Oh. And if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

————————————————————————

Addendum:

This last part is something I found online <and I cannot find my source> but wanted to share on this topic.

I did not write this.

But I found parts funny <albeit I don’t wish for some things the writer longs for>.

But it is a fun piece of writing which makes you think about business and why we change some of the shit we do.

————————————————————————–

How often do we wonder why some business changes something we already love.

Sneaker manufacturers are infamous for this kind of crap.

The moment you find a pair you like … they discontinue with next year’s model.

Aggravating.

Microsoft MSFT +2.32% is talking about redoing Windows 8, addressing user complaints that it’s too confusing to use. Some analysts even speculate that the company may bring back the popular “Start” button. PC aficionados who don’t like the touch-screen layout have savaged Windows 8, which makes a PC look like a tablet.Much like Coca-Cola, KO -0.28% which had to bring back Classic Coke after an uproar surrounding New Coke, Microsoft has had to admit that it got things wrong. And it got things wrong because it never bothered to ask its customers, “Gee, what do you guys think?”

Bring back normal M&M’s.

It would be wonderful if other companies brought back beloved old features that have been retired or massively altered. My wife recently started shopping for a car with a stick shift but found that such vehicles now come with a “continuous variable transmission” system, which makes a car run more like an automatic. It also reduces fuel efficiency by 10%. To her, CVT defeats the whole purpose of owning a stick. The solution is simple: Put things back the way they were. I don’t mean going back to eight-track players, rotary phones or pop-up toasters. But corporations have often cavalierly altered popular products without bothering to ask the public if it would welcome such modifications. These companies should follow Microsoft’s example and consider restoring the features that the public sorely misses. Here are a few examples:

I used to really enjoy 32-ounce bottles of orange juice. Thirty-two ounces of orange juice is exactly enough fluid to get a family of four through breakfast. But 25.8 ounces will not do it. Neither will 23.8 ounces. Two-thirds of the way through breakfast, you always end up being forced to crack open another bottle of juice. It’s unbelievably annoying. It would serve the public well if citrus-fruit bottlers brought back the quart bottle.

I would also love to see blue M&M’s summarily removed from bags of peanut M&M’s. I know they’ve been there since the ’90s, but these parvenu sweets are the confectionary equivalent of a touch screen on a PC. They don’t look right, and they don’t feel right.

I used to love buying tickets for the theater when you could pay the price listed on the ticket. I didn’t even mind when theaters started adding a $4 service charge per ticket, even though I was buying them online and there was no actual service involved. But I hate paying a $2.50 per ticket “facility fee.” A play has to be performed in a facility, so the facility fee should be part of the ticket price. Being asked to pay a facility fee is like being asked to pay $2.50 for a hot dog and then being charged a 50-cent “bun maintenance fee.” Bring back simple pricing.

Airplanes used to have room for your legs. They did, really, and you can even see old photos proving it. And they used to have employees who didn’t snarl at you when you asked for a second bag of stale peanuts. Restore those deleted features, please. Banks used to pay 8.5% on six-month certificates of deposit. Now they pay 1%. Could we have the old rates back? We really liked them.

Hollywood used to make movies starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in which they actually emoted, instead of engaging in coarse, over-the-top shtick. Could you bring back films like “Heat” and “The Deer Hunter” and “Godfather II”? And ask Messrs. De Niro and Pacino to stop phoning it in? We’d be beholden to you.

There are many other examples. Remember toilets that flushed not by magic but with a handle? Faucets you could turn on without having to wave your hands spasmodically in front of a kryptonite-powered motion detector? Paper-towel dispensers that could be used without knowing a secret set of rituals handed down by the Knights Templar?

I would also like to go back to a time when cars did not automatically lock their doors. If I want to lock my door, I will lock it; if I want to keep it open, I will do so. I have always had a deep fear of being trapped in a car with two pit bulls, and finding that the doors have capriciously decided to lock me in forever. Give me back the power to control my own environment.

So I thought I had left the whole right brain left brain discussion behind.

And it reared its ugly head again one more time just the other day. And <distressingly> it was in a business environment, with senior people, discussing people’s strengths & weaknesses.

Look.

This whole right brain, left brain thing about creativity versus ‘logical’ thinking has to stop.

Stop … now <please>.

The truth?

We use our whole brain for thinking. Not halves. And right brain left brain mumbo jumbo is just that … a bunch of mumbo jumbo crap.

Yup.

The whole thing is bullshit.

Trust me <you don’t really have to because I will share reasons why you should>. And if you don’t believe me … well … if you ever want to drive a psychologist/psychiatrist/neurologist/any ‘ist’ crazy … bring it up.

With that … a reminder on what his whole thing is. In the right-left mythology … the left brain is logical, ordered, and analytic, and it supports reading, speech, math, and reasoning. In the same myth … the right brain is more oriented towards feelings and emotions, spatial perception, and the arts, and is said to be more creative.

Well.

Interesting myth. And it is just a myth. It is wrong (wrong & wrong … and maybe even wrong again).

And we have actually known for at least 30 years that this characterization is incorrect.

In fact the guy who probably put us all in this mess originally <Mike Gazzaniga who created the study in the 60’s that some pop psychologist used to write some fantasy-like left/right brain business books that became best sellers> who was a pioneer of modern study of brain hemispheric differences immediately tried to put a stop to the craziness as soon as it began with a book chapter titled “Left brain, right brain: A debunking.”

And he did that 25 years ago.

<note: he wrote it because the original crap was begun after he did a brain hemisphere study in the 60’s>

And, yet, there is still plenty of bunk to go around.

Its crazy.

I myself have gnashed my teeth <and sometimes growled> against the “left brain / right brain” myth for years <probably not 25 but a bunch>. It usually is personal <and I believe this is so for most people>. People are always trying to tell me how “right-brained” I am <or left … I get confused>.

Which I always find amusing since whatever I am doing invariably needs whatever the other side of the brain was supposed to be doing.

Plus. I would like to think I am using my whole frickin’ brain.

But.

It mostly aggravates me ,and kind of disturbs me> because it is deliberately misleading.

It has been used to support endless management dialogue telling us that we should liberate ourselves from too much left-brain ‘logical’ thinking and enjoy the fruits of our liberated, right-brained creativity <or vice versa depending on your management belief system>.

Look.

People may be inherently more visual, aural, spatial, sequential, intuitive, rational <or irrational> talented or non-talented … but it ain’t because of anything to do with left versus right brain.

Ok.

If you don’t trust me I pulled this from a medical journal.

A more technical explanation of how the whole thing went haywire:

==

You’ve probably heard this left/ right brain dichotomy before. It goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative. The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s.

There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain: in most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.

So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain. All types of information are probably processed in both the left and right hemispheres (perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other).

An article was published this week in the venerable (and reliable) psychology journal Psychological Bulletin, which synthesized 67 brain imaging studies of creativity. Among other things, it showed that creativity is not especially a right-brain function. In fact, two of three broad classes of creative thought that have been studied seem not to depend on a single set of brain structures.

What we call “creativity” is so diverse that it can’t be localized in the brain very well.

One might think that this study would put to rest at least part of the left brain/right brain mythology, namely, that the right hemisphere of the brain is more responsible for creative thought than the left.

One would think so, but I wouldn’t count on it.

==

My conclusion?

I put the whole right/left brain thing in the same category as reading a horoscope or reading my own tarot cards. If you give someone a vague positive description in which they can see themselves they will tend to agree with you. And that is dangerous on a number of levels <if people actually believe it>.

Ok.

Here is the main reason I bring this up <beyond the fact it drives me crazy and it is still being seriously discussed in the business world>. It has a detrimental effect on education and how we manage our youth. It is as bad as social profiling when it comes to kids.

Left brain kid.

Right brain kid.

You carry that label and not only does the child begin to see themselves in that label <it is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy> the adults tag the child with the label. And start treating them that way. And expecting things based on the labeling.

All of a sudden the child is placed on the left, or right, brain treadmill <oops … I meant to say moving sidewalk>.

And then they are left there.

Uh oh.

One day the child wants to jump off the treadmill to hop on the other one for a while … <adults> “whoa … get back on your treadmill … you know that other one is only for the right brainers … and you will be much more successful on the left brain treadmill <sidewalk>.”

That, my friends, reads scary even if it seems just a theory.

And we all know that at some place, at some time, with some children … this is actually happening.

We need to squash this left/right brain myth forever. Now <please … again>.

We use all of our brain.

Brains are ambidextrous.

And even if you, personally, do not want to believe this, well, please … at least teach kids that is is so.

====================================

“Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully.“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.”“And he has Brain.”“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.”There was a long silence.“I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.”

“I don’t give a shit, I don’t take any shit, I’ m not in the shit business.”

=

Tim Richmond

——-

“The most important thing a person can learn, professionally, is where to draw a big fat line that separates what you are willing to do, and what you are not.”

=

Luke Sullivan

——

So.

This is a semi rant on doing shit work in business. And my stance on good shit versus bad shit.

Ok.

They say that one of the best tests of a human being is how well or badly he or she treats others with less power. In other words … are you an asshole or aren’t you.

I don’t agree.

I would suggest that the biggest measure of a person is how much shit they take … how much shit they compromise on and how much shitty work they do.

<the management corollary to this is … if you do shit and shit rolls downhill your actions will affect others therefore you are managing like shit>

To be clear.

I am not going to suggest anyone should actually be a shit … you should talk, listen, asked for opinions <and be open to opinions>, make people feel as comfortable as possible, and, in general, treat people with respect.

But I honestly have no desire to be known as the nice guy in business.

Why?

“Nice” suggests being able to put up with shit and not making any waves.

Well. Few of us leave an astounding legacy — in ways both large and small.

I know I have not … yet. And I haven’t given up on an astounding legacy. In fact … I am gonna fight tooth & nail <and maybe not always be the nice guy> until my dying breath to leave some astounding legacy.

Now.

I do not know what it is.

Shit.

I am fairly sure most of us don’t know what legacy we will leave … but dammit … I am surely gonna try and leave one. And I have no intention for it to be a shitty legacy. I want it to be a legacy worth a shit.

Now.

I tend to believe most of us have a lot of good shit within us. And that part of our problem is simply sifting through all the piles within us trying to figure out the really good shit from the okay shit from the bad shit.

——-

“I am a pile of ideas, a pile of dreams, a pile of plans, a pile of doubts, and so many other things.

I am a pile of piles and it is so overwhelming.

Should I get rid of some piles?

Should I climb them?

Or should I just give up and hide inside them? “

=

Bshayer F.R

——

I am a pile of piles and I want to do good shit. And I don’t want to give up and hide inside what I want to do … I want to go out and do some of the shit I want to do.

All that said.

I have no interest in being in the shit business.

I don’t want to have to bullshit to get where I want to go.

I don’t want to have to do shit work <either bad, less than what could be done or anything even remotely near simply ‘checking the box and doing what was asked’ type of shit>.

I don’t want to deal with people who only want to ‘get shit done.’

I want to work with people who want to ‘get good shit done.’

I want to work with people who are not willing to compromise <quickly> over the good shit.

Oh.

Back to the ‘piles of piles’ thought … I am a lot of shit. I am a lot of different things and am able to do a variety of good shit.

And while I have written this as personal … I am not alone. There are a shitload of people out there in the business world who are clearly not in the shit business.

The struggle for these non-shit people is that way way too many shit people … those who are willing to do and say shit.

This large group of people who, albeit they would never ever admit they were, are in the shit business. They are there by either doing shit or simply putting up with shit.

Well.

The few, the proud, the people who know they know their shit. They gotta stand up with their piles of piles and let the word feel their weight.

—

“Let people feel the weight of who you are and let them deal with it.”

=

John Eldridge

—–

I am not in the shit business.

I never have been and I never will be.

And I will put up with whatever shit thrown my way just to continue not being in the shit business.

Luckily.

There are others who feel the same way and we have our eye on getting rid of the bad shit being done in business and replacing it with good shit <or at least people with a desire to do good shit>.